Techdirt. Stories filed under "parliament"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "parliament"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 9 May 2014 17:38:30 PDTUK Parliament Finally Admits That Snowden Revelations Reveal That GCHQ Oversight Is BrokenMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140509/06575327176/uk-parliament-finally-admits-that-snowden-revelations-reveal-that-gchq-oversight-is-broken.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140509/06575327176/uk-parliament-finally-admits-that-snowden-revelations-reveal-that-gchq-oversight-is-broken.shtmlmuch worse. Making newspapers destroy hard drives, detaining people at airports for "terroristic" acts of journalism and generally seeking to block any and all discussion goes a level beyond what's happened in the US. And it's become clear that, as weak as oversight of the intelligence community has been in the US, it's been even worse in the UK, where its own "watchdog" only has one full-time employee.

And, while there's been at least a somewhat healthy debate about the state of surveillance within the US Congress, it's been much more muted over in the UK. So it's encouraging to see a new report come from a group of UK Members of Parliament that issues a blistering condemnation of the current state of oversight of the UK intelligence community:

A highly critical report by the Commons home affairs select committee published on Friday calls for a radical reform of the current system of oversight of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, arguing that the current system is so ineffective it is undermining the credibility of the intelligence agencies and parliament itself.

The MPs say the current system was designed in a pre-internet age when a person's word was accepted without question. "It is designed to scrutinise the work of George Smiley, not the 21st-century reality of the security and intelligence services," said committee chairman, Keith Vaz. "The agencies are at the cutting edge of sophistication and are owed an equally refined system of democratic scrutiny. It is an embarrassing indictment of our system that some in the media felt compelled to publish leaked information to ensure that matters were heard in parliament."

Of course, the current head of the intellegence and security committee in Parliament, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, pretty much dismissed the entire report with a wave of the hand, calling it "old hat."

Still, the report is fairly damning for the intelligence community, and directly notes what a service Ed Snowden appears to have done in exposing just how out of control the intelligence community has become -- and what little real oversight the government has over it. While some MPs (from the Labour and Lib Dem parties) sought to congratulate the Guardian for "responsibly reporting" the Snowden leaks, others from the Tory party voted them down. Still, it's good to see members from two of the three major UK political parties admit that you can responsibly report on these things and that Snowden helped to open up a "wide and international public debate."

The report also contrasts how the Guardian has responded to Parliamentary inquiry with that of the intelligence community:

Their report says Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, responded to criticism of newspapers that decided to publish Snowden's disclosures, including the head of MI6's claim that it was "a gift to terrorists", by saying that the alternative would be that the next Snowden would just "dump the stuff on the internet".

The MPs say: "One of the reasons that Edward Snowden has cited for releasing the documents is that he believes the oversight of security and intelligence agencies is not effective. It is important to note that when we asked British civil servants – the national security adviser and the head of MI5 – to give evidence to us they refused. In contrast, Mr Rusbridger came before us and provided open and transparent evidence."

The report makes clear the intelligence chiefs should drop their boycott of wider parliamentary scrutiny. "Engagement with elected representatives is not, in itself, a danger to national security and to continue to insist so is hyperbole," it says.

It's a small step forward, but an important one.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>about-timehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140509/06575327176Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:38:00 PSTLegal Analysis Requested By Members Of Parliament Says GCHQ Surveillance Is Illegal TooMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140128/17554826031/legal-analysis-requested-members-parliament-says-gchq-surveillance-is-illegal-too.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140128/17554826031/legal-analysis-requested-members-parliament-says-gchq-surveillance-is-illegal-too.shtmlare clearly illegal. However, over in the UK, the government has appeared to be even more protective of the surveillance by GCHQ, and even more insistent that the activities have been legal. While there's a thriving debate going on in the US, many UK officials seem to have pushed back on even the possibility of a similar debate -- and there has been little suggestion of reform. While it's still unclear how much reform there will be of the NSA, the UK government hasn't indicated even an openness to the idea.

In a 32-page opinion, the leading public law barrister Jemima Stratford QC raises a series of concerns about the legality and proportionality of GCHQ's work, and the lack of safeguards for protecting privacy.

It makes clear the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), the British law used to sanction much of GCHQ's activity, has been left behind by advances in technology. The advice warns:

Ripa does not allow mass interception of contents of communications between two people in the UK, even if messages are routed via a transatlantic cable.

The interception of bulk metadata – such as phone numbers and email addresses – is a "disproportionate interference" with Article 8 of the ECHR.

The current framework for the retention, use and destruction of metadata is inadequate and likely to be unlawful.

If the government knows it is transferring data that may be used for drone strikes against non-combatants in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan, that is probably unlawful.

The power given to ministers to sanction GCHQ's interception of messages abroad "is very probably unlawful".

There's a lot more in the report, described at that Guardian link above, which is well worth reading. It makes you wonder how much longer the UK government can pretend that everything is perfectly fine with the GCHQ's activities.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>well,-look-at-that...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140128/17554826031Fri, 2 Nov 2012 05:14:04 PDTAny Hint Of Evidence Based Copyright In The UK Seen As Nefarous Plot By Parliamentary Copyright MaximalistsGlyn Moodyhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/03015020899/any-hint-evidence-based-copyright-uk-seen-as-nefarous-plot-parliamentary-copyright-maximalists.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/03015020899/any-hint-evidence-based-copyright-uk-seen-as-nefarous-plot-parliamentary-copyright-maximalists.shtmlThe laws governing intellectual monopolies in the UK are in a state of flux at the moment. After the previous government in its dying hours rammed through the shoddy piece of work known as the Digital Economy Act, the present coalition government took a more rational approach by commissioning the Hargreaves Review into the impact of digital technologies on this area. One of its key proposals was that policy should be based on evidence, not "lobbynomics"; the fact that this even needs to be mentioned says much about the way laws have been framed until now.

As a result, the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has been trying to gather evidence in order to help politicians draw up new policies that correspond to the data, not just dogma. Not surprisingly, perhaps, those that have done well under the previous evidence-free approach have been mounting a rearguard action against the changes.

Ian Hargreaves was notionally in charge of that process [of looking at digital copyright], but having observed evidence being taken, and the report and recommendations be delivered, I suggest that the hand of the Intellectual Property Office was all over it. I believe that Ian Hargreaves was perhaps a figurehead, because the IPO seems to have driven the agenda. We will discuss some of the exceptions to copyright that the IPO proposed as part of its consultation, but it has been steering the process all the way through.

What is that predicated on? It is predicated on the belief that economic evidence should be at the heart of every initiative and everything that we do concerning intellectual property law. Ian Hargreaves has been perhaps a little cavalier when it comes to intellectual property, and we could say that he has made heroic assumptions about the value of some of the proposed recommendations and exceptions.

The Group was launched in 2003 as a response to this and to create a resource for parliamentarians of both Houses interested in learning more about intellectual property (IP), its role in stimulating creativity and economic growth, how new services are developing to serve consumer needs, and the harm that can be caused when IP is not properly respected and protected.

As that makes clear, the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group is not an official UK government body, but more of a club for like-minded individuals. Earlier this year, the group announced its unofficial inquiry into how the UK government was handling intellectual monopolies:

The Group will seek to unpick the tangled web of cross-departmental responsibilities in this area by considering how policy has been developed, the effectiveness of the current approach, and whether the machinery of government can be improved for better policy formulation.

The fact that IP attracts so much interest reflects its increasing importance in our economy. Clearly IP on its own does not generate economic activity, but as a property right, it enables innovators, creators, manufacturers and designers to protect their innovation and monetise their work.

We were also concerned that officials from the IPO find it difficult to describe intellectual property as a property right. It was described as a framework by one official which immediately undermines it. If the IPO sees IP as a framework then it suggests they see it as something that can be shaped and altered at will. We question whether such a laissez fair[e] attitude would be taken to other property rights and if they were, whether senior Officials and Ministers would allow such an attitude to pervade.

Note that the IPO is blamed here for simply conveying a truth that is unpalatable to the group. Elsewhere, the report tries really hard to find other reasons to blame the IPO; unfortunately, the facts keep getting in the way:

The evidence we received and heard was varied in this respect. Certainly the IPO's role as a registration body for patents was seen as very positive as was its role in educating both consumers and business about IP.

Whoops, sounds like the IPO is doing a good job for patents, so what about for copyright?

People's criticisms of the IPO's policy making process appear to have been ignited by their most recent recommendations in relation to copyright. There were many groups who supported these recommendations and the process by which they came about, however a very large number did not.

Oh dear: "many groups" supported the IPO again; but luckily, others did not. That is hardly surprising, since some of the ideas being considered by the IPO would try to put a modicum of balance back in UK laws governing copyright. That's never really happened before, thanks to the ratchet effect that has ensured the public domain has been constantly impoverished when the law is changed.

The idea that stakeholders might have to give something back to the public in the form of minimal exceptions may be unheard of, but it's hardly unreasonable. Arguably, we need to run the ratchet back much further in order to obtain anything like a fair balance between the rights of stakeholders, and the rights of the public.

But the latter are rarely considered. Indeed, it's significant that the world "public" isn't mentioned once in the Parliamentary group's new report. The nearest thing we get is "consumers", notably in the following paragraph, which betrays a typical lack of understanding about how formerly passive consumers are morphing into active co-creators:

When the officials from the IPO gave evidence, they were very clear that they saw their role as providing balance -- they see this balance as ensuring consumers can have access to content. We believe the IPO should look more carefully at how the IP framework stimulates the creation and development of new content, services, designs and other IP rich innovation as much as how existing content can be accessed. Only if they do this, will consumers of the future continue to have access to the content, products and services they enjoy.

That paragraph sums up why the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group so dislikes the IPO: the latter is trying to provide balance, and that is really the last thing that the copyright maximalists and their allies want to see here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>can't-have-thathttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121101/03015020899Mon, 8 Oct 2012 23:54:11 PDTFighting Lack of Transparency And Engagement With Parliamentary OpennessGlyn Moodyhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121005/07505920619/fighting-lack-transparency-engagement-with-parliamentary-openness.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121005/07505920619/fighting-lack-transparency-engagement-with-parliamentary-openness.shtmlA recurrent theme here on Techdirt is the persistent lack of transparency during the drafting of new laws or the negotiation of new treaties. Most governments, it seems, retain the view that they know best, that the electorate shouldn't worry about all those tiresome details being discussed in secret backroom negotiations, and that since the public will be able to see the result once it's all finished, what's the problem?

However, the world of government is beginning to change, largely under the impact of movements promoting openness of various kinds. In particular, efforts to promote open data and open government have major implications for transparency. The latest manifestation of that push for openness is OpeningParliament.org, "a forum intended to help connect the world's civic organizations engaged in monitoring, supporting and opening up their countries' parliaments and legislative institutions."

Here's more about its aims:

Parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) are working to create strong, open and accountable parliaments, through enhancing citizen participation in the legislative process and bringing parliaments closer to the people they represent. OpeningParliament.org provides a forum for international collaboration on efforts to improve access to parliamentary information and share experiences and good practices among PMOs. It also serves as the home of the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness, a set of shared principles on the openness, transparency and accessibility of parliaments being developed by the international PMO community.

The Declaration is quite long and wide ranging. Here's its stated purpose:

The Declaration on Parliamentary Openness is a call to national parliaments, and sub-national and transnational legislative bodies, by civil society parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) for an increased commitment to openness and to citizen engagement in parliamentary work.

The Declaration includes a number of sections dealing explicitly with transparency and engagement:

2. Advancing a Culture of Openness through Legislation

Parliament has a duty to enact legislation, as well as internal rules of procedure and codes of conduct, that foster an enabling environment guaranteeing the public's right to government and parliamentary information, promoting a culture of open government, providing for transparency of political finance, safeguards freedoms of expression and assembly, and ensuring engagement by civil society and citizens in the legislative process.

5. Engaging Citizens and Civil Society

Parliament has a duty to actively engage citizens and civil society, without discrimination, in parliamentary processes and decision-making in order to effectively represent citizen interests and to give effect to the right of citizens to petition their government.

18. Engaging Citizens on Draft Legislation

Draft legislation shall be made public and published upon its introduction. Recognizing the need for citizens to be fully informed about and provide input into items under consideration, parliament shall seek to provide public access to preparatory analysis and background information to encourage broad understanding of policy discussions about the proposed legislation.

44. Facilitating Two-Way Communication

Parliament shall endeavor to use interactive technology tools to foster the ability of citizens to provide meaningful input on legislation and parliamentary activity and to facilitate communication with members or parliamentary staff.

These are obviously great aspirations that would go some way to addressing the problems around transparency and engagement that are only too common today, but a legitimate question must be: so what? It's not as if governments are lining up to endorse these principles of parliamentary openness.

That may be true, but openness in the form of open source, open data, open standards and open government are certainly making themselves felt to varying degrees in countries around the world. What the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness makes explicit is how these are part of a larger move towards transparency and citizen engagement. At the very least, it's yet another set of voices calling for much more of both. One day, governments might even listen.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>not-much,-but-all-we've-gothttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121005/07505920619Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:57:17 PDTJulian Assange's Ultimate Publicity Stunt: Running For Australian Senate?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/00274218151/julian-assanges-ultimate-publicity-stunt-running-australian-senate.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/00274218151/julian-assanges-ultimate-publicity-stunt-running-australian-senate.shtmlplans to run for the Australian Senate, even while he's still stuck in the UK, awaiting a ruling on being extradited to Sweden (with some concerns about eventually being extradited to the US as well). Wikileaks also announced plans to have someone else run against current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who Assange feels has not done enough to support him. While there have been some questions about the legality of such a run, enough Australian legal experts seem to agree that he can probably do it. Whether or not he can actually get very much support is another question altogether. However, from an outside observer's standpoint, it's going to make the next Australian elections a lot more interesting.

Oh, and just for amusement's sake, one Australian publication mocked Wikileaks for misspelling Gilard's electorate, given its namesake's similarities to Assange himself:

Assange had an electoral learning process of his own which played out live on Twitter yesterday morning, with a first message from the Wikileaks feed announcing only that the organisation would be “fielding a candidate to run against Julia Gillard in her home seat of Laylor (sic)”. Very shortly afterwards, a second tweet declared: “We have discovered that it is possible for Julian Assange to run for the Australian Senate while detained. Julian has decided to run.” The spelling error in the initial tweet betrayed a curious ignorance of Australian history, given that the electorate in question is named after Peter Lalor, who led the famous Eureka Rebellion at the Ballarat goldfields in 1854. One would have thought that Lalor, a radical activist who saw his efforts crudely suppressed by the authorities before going on to a distinguished career as a parliamentarian, might have been better known to Assange – if not to the extent that he would have spelt his name correctly, then at least so far that he might have misspelled it in a phonetically correct manner (“Lawlor”). But I digress.

I would be pretty surprised if this candidacy (or either candidacy if they really do raise two candidates) actually goes anywhere, but that won't make it any less entertaining to follow.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>really,-now?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120319/00274218151Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:08:26 PSTEuropean Parliament Member Marietje Schaake Explains How Europeans Can Stop ACTAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/11082317540/european-parliament-member-marietje-schaake-explains-how-europeans-can-stop-acta.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/11082317540/european-parliament-member-marietje-schaake-explains-how-europeans-can-stop-acta.shtmldiscussing, there's been a lot of misinformation flying around concerning ACTA -- especially in the EU, where it has not yet been officially voted on. While we've tried to explain some of the problems with the agreement, there is still plenty of confusion over what to do about it. Thankfully, Marietje Schaake, a Member of the European Parliament (whose excellent work we've discussed before) has taken to Reddit to provide a lot more detail about the process itself, and what people can do to speak up. It's very useful info, especially for those in Europe (while also being a nice display of how politicians can use Reddit for good purposes). Basically, while ACTA has been signed by many members of the EU, it still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament. That's why there's still some time and why you should pay attention to what Schaake has to say. Here's a snippet:

So what can we do to stop ACTA?

If you are concerned about ACTA, you can convince the EP to vote against ACTA. In November 2010 we proposed an alternative resolution on ACTA, which intended to take away the main concerns. It was voted down by a very slight majority, please see here (the red section represents MEPs voting against our resolution). As you can see, the difference is only 16 votes, out of 736 (or 754 as it stands now). Another text was then voted in favour, which said the Commission should carry on its negotiations.

If you are concerned about ACTA, contact MEPs (from your country of political party), especially targeting the ones who are in the committees who will vote on ACTA in the coming months. You can find their email addresses on the EP website. Perhaps it won't have to come to a blackout!

She even includes a TL;DR version (it's so nice when politicians actually understand how the internet works). And, because that's all people want anyway, here's that one, too:

TL;DR: Important dates for ACTA in the European Parliament:
- 29 February/1 March: Discussion in international trade committee,
- April or May: Vote in international trade committee,
- 12, 13 or 14 June: Final vote in plenary (most important vote).
(Please note, all dates may be changed)

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>don't miss ithttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120125/11082317540Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:25:23 PDTPirate Party Takes 9% Of The Vote In Berlin Elections, Wins A Bunch Of Seats In ParliamentMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/02131516001/pirate-party-takes-9-vote-berlin-elections-wins-bunch-seats-parliament.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/02131516001/pirate-party-takes-9-vote-berlin-elections-wins-bunch-seats-parliament.shtmlsecure nearly 9% of the vote in the latest Berlin state parliamentary elections, which should translate into 15 seats in the Berlin Parliament. While many who don't understand the Pirate Party platform think it's just about file sharing, the fact is that more and more young people are recognizing that digital freedom is an important issue. I've long been on the record that I think the name of the party greatly distracts from its overall goals, but I do recognize the reason the party decided to go that way. Getting nearly 9% of the vote in any election for a relatively unknown party is quite impressive. Given that it's Germany, I have to imagine that the ridiculous state of German copyright law played a large role in leading to this election result. If anything it supports the viewpoint that the more draconian copyright law becomes, the less people are going to respect it. The question now is whether or not those elected will actually be able to have any impact, and if the party itself can leverage this into something more.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>that-makes-things-interestinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110919/02131516001Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:38:44 PDTCould New Zealand's Parliament Lose Its Internet Connection Under Its Own Three Strikes Law?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110811/17461015483/could-new-zealands-parliament-lose-its-internet-connection-under-its-own-three-strikes-law.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110811/17461015483/could-new-zealands-parliament-lose-its-internet-connection-under-its-own-three-strikes-law.shtmlcompilation made by a friend? After the law passed, various libraries realized they might suddenly become liable, and many are considering shutting off their WiFi.

But you know who else might be liable? The New Zealand Parliament itself! Boing Boing points us to the news that the Green Party has put out a press release pointing out that even the Parliament might run afoul of the new law, and could risk fines or losing its internet connection.

"This law could bring the gears of government to a grinding halt because the holder of the account — Parliamentary Services — provides internet access to hundreds of users any one of whom could cause infringement notices to be sent."

Not only that, but they note that no one in Parliament has set up a plan to deal with any potential infringement notices, which could put them into even greater trouble. Of course, other MPs will likely claim that this clearly doesn't apply to Parliament, which just shows the ridiculous double standard of such laws.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>looks-that-wayhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110811/17461015483Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:59:00 PDTDoes It Make Sense For Governments To Make Their Content Creative Commons... Or Fully Public Domain?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/10445214719/does-it-make-sense-governments-to-make-their-content-creative-commons-fully-public-domain.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/10445214719/does-it-make-sense-governments-to-make-their-content-creative-commons-fully-public-domain.shtmlcensor dissent.

So, it's certainly nice to hear, via James Firth, that the UK Parliament may consider moving away from relying on Crown Copyright on the works it produces. Apparently, at a discussion concerning the "digital agenda" and making information more open, the Director of Programmes and Development at Parliamentary ICT, Richard Ware, suggested that copyright didn't make sense for Parliamentary content:

"We're not looking to make any kind of return from this content. For us it's more important to open up the information and see what people can do with it."

Now, that's sort of a vague statement, but it at least indicates the direction that they're looking in. What struck me as interesting is that Firth took this statement to mean that Parliament is looking at using Creative Commons for its content. To be honest, it's not clear to me from the coverage of what Ware said that he was, in fact, discussing Creative Commons or some alternative solution. Firth has a nice discussion about the different CC licenses and which might make most sense for Parliament, but I wonder why it doesn't just make sense to go fully public domain on such material.

As much as I like and respect Creative Commons, it does seem that, all too often, people think either that Creative Commons is the public domain or that it's a replacement for the public domain. While CC has introduced a public domain license, I think it's important not to confuse the two. And, while CC licenses certainly make sense for different creators in different arenas, I would worry that for government-produced works, it would just create confusion, as many people seem to assume all CC licenses say things that many do not.

So I'm curious: is there any reason for a government to make its works covered by Creative Commons? Or should they just go public domain? Or, since we want all bases covered, can someone explain why governments should retain some form of copyright on their works?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>they're-not-the-samehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110616/10445214719Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:31:07 PDTEU Parliament Members Not At All Happy About ACTAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12233811295/eu-parliament-members-not-at-all-happy-about-acta.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12233811295/eu-parliament-members-not-at-all-happy-about-acta.shtmlreleased this week (the first time since April that negotiators have decided it's worth letting us officially see the document), which they continue to insist they've been "transparent" about. We've already noted that the EU Parliament has rejected the secrecy around ACTA, but the EU Commission (which is negotiating the agreement) has more or less ignored them. Now, with reports coming out saying the agreement being close to done, EU Parliament members are speaking out against ACTA. They're demanding a copy of the document, and warning that they need to approve it before the agreement is official. And, they're specifically complaining about the impression negotiators are giving that this agreement does not need European Parliament approval. In the end, I still don't think this will derail the agreement, but it's really quite amazing the entitlement attitude of negotiators on this agreement, where they've clearly decided that they're only going to pay attention to people who already agree with them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>now-can-they-do-anything?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101005/12233811295Wed, 22 Sep 2010 05:47:59 PDTEuropean Parliament Approves Gallo Report: Opens The Door To More Bad IP Laws & EnforcementMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/04264411110/european-parliament-approves-gallo-report-opens-the-door-to-more-bad-ip-laws-enforcement.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/04264411110/european-parliament-approves-gallo-report-opens-the-door-to-more-bad-ip-laws-enforcement.shtmlsupport similarly draconian intellectual property enforcement, based on a series of highly questionable or debunked claims. You can read the report below, or see some of the concerns about it here.

Unfortunately, since the calls for attention on this document really only came out with a day's warning on the vote, it should not be surprising to find out that the Gallo report was approved by a vote of 328 to 245. This is disappointing for a European Parliament that had already hit back strongly against ACTA, when this document effectively opens the door to very similar ACTA-style problems.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>it-never-ever-stopshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100922/04264411110Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:05:00 PDTFreedom Of The Press? UK's The Guardian Barred From Reporting On ParliamentMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091012/2150126495.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091012/2150126495.shtmlbarred from reporting on a certain action in Parliament (Update: read below). But how do you even report on being barred from reporting on a particular subject without reporting on it. Watch the linguistic gymnastics The Guardian goes through:

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented -- for the first time in memory -- from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Yet another case of chilling effects in the form of lawyers suing over coverage they don't like. Of course, we're not barred from reporting on anything, and checking through some Parliament webpages turns up the following list of questions, including the following:

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

Of course, my guess is that Trafigura and Carter-Ruck are about to learn about The Streisand Effect, and UK politicians are about to get another lesson on why its libel laws need to be fixed. In the meantime, in the absence of all of this, how many people would have heard about this whole Trafigura affair? How many more people are about to become aware of it?

Update: After this story got spread all over the internet (especially on Twitter), it looks like Carter-Ruck backed down. Of course... the end result? Much worse than if they had never tried to gag the newspapers. A lot more people are aware of the story. Why do lawyers still think banning such things will work?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>how do you report on being banned from reporting?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091012/2150126495Tue, 12 May 2009 02:51:48 PDTCanadian Parliament Threatens People For Posting Video Of Proceedings OnlineMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0851414833.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0851414833.shtmlsent them a cease and desist, claiming it was "contempt of Parliament." They've also been sending takedowns to YouTube and other video hosting sites, claiming that this content is somehow proprietary, covered by "crown copyright" (something, thankfully, we don't have in the US) and subject to severe licensing restrictions. While it sounds like some Canadian politicians recognize the need to change, in the meantime, they're making a travesty of any sense of governmental openness.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>how-dare-you-want-transparencyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090511/0851414833Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:04:00 PSTEU Proposal Would Outright Ban BitTorrent Sites, Make ISPs Copyright Cops & Use 3 StrikesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/2216223594.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/2216223594.shtmlslapped down they always have many other efforts underway to give a similar proposal life somewhere else. So what if the EU Parliament said that using a three strikes policy went against basic civil rights? Just get another person to come up with a proposal that's even more strict. That seems to be what's happening as the EU Parliament may consider a proposal by Manuel Medina Ortega, which TorrentFreak notes basically is a perfect wishlist of the Big Copyright players. You've got your three strikes policies, your demands that ISPs "take responsibility" and (best of all) the declaration that all BitTorrent and file sharing services are 100% illegal -- no questions asked. Hmm. Apparently someone forgot to inform all the creative folks who are happily using such systems to distribute their works... I don't know enough about European politics to know if this is likely to go anywhere, but given earlier EU Parliament rulings, I'm hopeful that this is quickly tossed aside as being completely out of touch with reality.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>just-what-the-industry-orderedhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090201/2216223594Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:01:00 PDTEuropean Parliament Rejects Laws Kicking File Sharers Off The InternetMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080925/1522352377.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080925/1522352377.shtmlagainst laws proposed by entertainment industry lobbyists, that would force ISPs to kick accused file sharers off the internet using a "three strikes" law. Now the Parliament has made its position even clearer, taking a vote and, once again, rejecting the idea of using three strikes laws to fight unauthorized file sharing, noting that it interfered with civil rights and privacy rights of individuals. The sponsor of the motion made it clear: "You do not play with individual freedoms like that." He also suggested that France, who had already put in place a three strikes law, should reconsider. It's so rare these days to see politicians not falling for the lobbyists' claims, that it's nice to see.